Absurdity of Morality Apart From God

[siam]

The argument would go something like this:

• (1) For morality to be rational, there must be ultimate justice.

• (2) We mortal and fallible beings cannot achieve ultimate justice.

• (3) There must be some supernatural being who can achieve ultimate justice.

• (4) For morality to be rational, God must exist.

1) for humanity to survive there must be co-operation
2) for co-operation to succeed thee must be group cohesion
3) for group-cohesion to work everyone must agree to a set of values represented by rules/laws---ethics/morality
4) for these values to be accepted by the group---they need to come from a "moral authority"
5) for this moral authority to be accepted intergenerationally---over a long period of time---it needs to be "non-human"/abstract and not specific to a particular individual human. (concepts such as a king who is "son of God", A sage who receives "wisdom" from a universal cosmic force...etc)
6) In order for such the concept of (non-human) moral authority to make sense---it needs a framework/paradigm/story....

[Starlight]

1) for humanity to survive there must be co-operation

There's a bunch of things like this that are highly-desirable / necessary survival traits for the human species. Obviously evolution selects for them really strongly, given all human individuals innate drives to do them, and equally they are rational for thoughtful humans to do.

As a result you find commonalities in all cultures that are reflective of these underlying needed traits. Each culture might add on top its own arbitrary ideas, and it's own religious teachings etc, but somewhere in there they have to include these necessary universals. Thus there are a variety of moral principles that are the common denominator amongst all cultures, and these ultimately derive from core survival necessities like co-operation etc.

2) for co-operation to succeed thee must be group cohesion
3) for group-cohesion to work everyone must agree to a set of values represented by rules/laws---ethics/morality
4) for these values to be accepted by the group---they need to come from a "moral authority"
5) for this moral authority to be accepted intergenerationally---over a long period of time---it needs to be "non-human"/abstract and not specific to a particular individual human. (concepts such as a king who is "son of God", A sage who receives "wisdom" from a universal cosmic force...etc)
6) In order for such the concept of (non-human) moral authority to make sense---it needs a framework/paradigm/story....

I can see this argument applying to a lot of cultures, particularly those that faced external threats. Really strong group cohesion is something you need if you've got an enemy you need to unite against, not so important if you don't have one. And not all cultures do - one of the basic differences I recall from a first year course on cultural anthropology is that cultures that are peaceful have a tendency to be matrilineal and have the women having quite a lot of authority, while if the culture is under external threat it has a tendency to be patrilineal and focus on the physical strength of its warriors.

I note that Western culture today seems to be a counter-example to your suggestion here. It's the most physically powerful and geographically widespread culture in human history, and it doesn't have the features you suggest - there's no agreed-upon story, no really well articulated principles from an abstract / non-human source etc.

[Stoic]

1) for humanity to survive there must be co-operation
2) for co-operation to succeed thee must be group cohesion
3) for group-cohesion to work everyone must agree to a set of values represented by rules/laws---ethics/morality
4) for these values to be accepted by the group---they need to come from a "moral authority"
5) for this moral authority to be accepted intergenerationally---over a long period of time---it needs to be "non-human"/abstract and not specific to a particular individual human. (concepts such as a king who is "son of God", A sage who receives "wisdom" from a universal cosmic force...etc)
6) In order for such the concept of (non-human) moral authority to make sense---it needs a framework/paradigm/story....

I can agree with the first three. The last three may be helpful, but I don't see them as necessary.

It would be necessary to have some people who spend time thinking about what rules are best, and convincing everyone else that certain rules are best. But they are only "authorities" to the extent that they can convince people that their ideas are worthwhile. For those rules to be accepted intergenerationally, it would be best if they were taught to children by their parents.

[siam]

1) There's a bunch of things like this that are highly-desirable / necessary survival traits for the human species. Obviously evolution selects for them really strongly, given all human individuals innate drives to do them, and equally they are rational for thoughtful humans to do.

As a result you find commonalities in all cultures that are reflective of these underlying needed traits. Each culture might add on top its own arbitrary ideas, and it's own religious teachings etc, but somewhere in there they have to include these necessary universals. Thus there are a variety of moral principles that are the common denominator amongst all cultures, and these ultimately derive from core survival necessities like co-operation etc.

2) I can see this argument applying to a lot of cultures, particularly those that faced external threats. Really strong group cohesion is something you need if you've got an enemy you need to unite against, not so important if you don't have one. And not all cultures do - one of the basic differences I recall from a first year course on cultural anthropology is that cultures that are peaceful have a tendency to be matrilineal and have the women having quite a lot of authority, while if the culture is under external threat it has a tendency to be patrilineal and focus on the physical strength of its warriors.

3) I note that Western culture today seems to be a counter-example to your suggestion here. It's the most physically powerful and geographically widespread culture in human history, and it doesn't have the features you suggest - there's no agreed-upon story, no really well articulated principles from an abstract / non-human source etc.

1) I agree.
human nature is similar enough to generate "universals" (generally accepted principles)

2) My observation is that a threat/war is a very effective tool of group cohesion---and when other means of group cohesion break down---an (artificially engineered) "threat" can be used as a substitute?....For example, the group that occupied Mecca at the dawn of Islam were polytheists---that is, they accepted many Gods and had no particular problem with the monotheism of the Jews and Christians---Yet when people started to accept Islam (a monotheist faith) they reacted violently against it---why? because Islam brought with it an alternate vision of group-cohesion (and therefore group identity) one that was not based on tribalism and hierarchy. The Meccan society was already ethically/morally dysfunctional....and so this new alternative was a convenient "threat". It need not have been---Islam could have co-existed, yet, Muslims were driven out of Mecca.

The U.S. and its "forever" wars is another good example....
(...and as to women leaders----wasn't it during the time of Margaret Thatcher that Britain went to war in the Falklands?)

3) There are agreed upon stories/myths that "Western" culture is based upon. For example the concept of "Nation"---an arbitrary "boundary" which gives a particular group "privileges' and identity. It has its stories---such as for the U.S. ---Manifest Destiny/American Dream....etc....it has its rituals and songs. It has its particular historical "stories" (creation myths) such as being inheritors of the glorious Greco-Roman culture and wisdom...etc...thereby making them the leaders and teachers of the "others".

As to principles derived from an abstract source---there is---some enlightenment philosophers (and subsequent ones) posited "Nature" as the governing "force" and from it derived positions on what is the nature of "human" , what is its purpose ...etc.

[siam]

I can agree with the first three. The last three may be helpful, but I don't see them as necessary.

It would be necessary to have some people who spend time thinking about what rules are best, and convincing everyone else that certain rules are best. But they are only "authorities" to the extent that they can convince people that their ideas are worthwhile. For those rules to be accepted intergenerationally, it would be best if they were taught to children by their parents.

When rules/laws are made on the basis of human authority---they can be easily changed. Human authority can change from generation to generation. For example---today a "Nation-State" is in charge of making laws---and as we have seen in the U.S. the laws against torture, (enhanced interrogation), killing of civilians (collateral damage), mistreatment and detention of combatants (abu ghraib, guantanomo...) all have been "Legalized" in the U.S. because of convenience. For humane principles to stick intergenerationally and not be overthrown because of "convenience" a more robust (transcendent?) concept of "moral authority" might be needed?

[Tassman]

When rules/laws are made on the basis of human authority---they can be easily changed. Human authority can change from generation to generation. For example---today a "Nation-State" is in charge of making laws---and as we have seen in the U.S. the laws against torture, (enhanced interrogation), killing of civilians (collateral damage), mistreatment and detention of combatants (abu ghraib, guantanomo...) all have been "Legalized" in the U.S. because of convenience. For humane principles to stick intergenerationally and not be overthrown because of "convenience" a more robust (transcendent?) concept of "moral authority" might be needed?

“Rules and laws” are made on the basis of human authority and have been frequently changed or adapted over time to meet the contemporary social needs and values of the day. They are NOT universal; they are a product of the evolution of necessary social behavior to survive as a cooperative intelligent social species.

[Stoic]

When rules/laws are made on the basis of human authority---they can be easily changed. Human authority can change from generation to generation. For example---today a "Nation-State" is in charge of making laws---and as we have seen in the U.S. the laws against torture, (enhanced interrogation), killing of civilians (collateral damage), mistreatment and detention of combatants (abu ghraib, guantanomo...) all have been "Legalized" in the U.S. because of convenience. For humane principles to stick intergenerationally and not be overthrown because of "convenience" a more robust (transcendent?) concept of "moral authority" might be needed?

I hope that's not the case, because it doesn't appear to me that there is one.

[siam]

“Rules and laws” are made on the basis of human authority and have been frequently changed or adapted over time to meet the contemporary social needs and values of the day. They are NOT universal; they are a product of the evolution of necessary social behavior to survive as a cooperative intelligent social species.

I agree.

It is obvious human beings make the rules...that is not the point. If human beings who make the rules---want the rules to work over time---they need a story that creates a "moral authority" that exists "over time". One such example are the "myths" of kings who have divine lineage---for example, the Emperor of Japan is the descendant of the Gods who created Japan....this takes "moral authority" out of the timeline of a single human and puts it across a larger segment of time.

If we are to survive as a co-operative, intelligent, social species---myths are helpful in creating a basis to which the group can give assent to certain principles. Myths need not be theistic....however, some characteristics of myths (paradigms) make them more beneficial or more harmful.
As a general rule---myths that promote cohesion (unity) are more beneficial to humanity than those that promote division---for example, Manicheasm posits 2 opposing forces of good and evil fighting each other and this creates the vicissitudes we observe, The Chinese posit 2 complimentary forces of Ying and Yang that cause the fluctuations---Science might explain the observed phenomenon in terms of natural equilibrium...whatever the explanations---the one that promotes unity/cohesion is better for humanity than the one that promotes divisions. Therefore, the explanation of complementary forces working together to create balance and harmony is a more beneficial explanation. Such a myth will be more likely to promote co-operation.

Humanity is made up of many groups---each with their own myths that promote social cohesion within those groups. Therefore, in order for all these groups to co-operate on a larger scale---humanity needs a "mega-myth".
Suppose we premise that the golden rule is "universal"---that pretty much all of humanity can give assent to it----then, as mentioned above, a mega-myth that promotes "unity" will be more beneficial to humanity than one that promotes division. This myth would posit that all humanity is of equivalent value and none superior/inferior to the other. (In reality---there are all sorts of inequalities such as able-bodied vs handicapped, wealthy vs poor...etc) This myth of equivalent value is essential for fair (just) dispute resolutions...and it is only through non-violent dispute resolutions that intergroup co-operation can be effective.

[siam]

I hope that's not the case, because it doesn't appear to me that there is one.

Not sure if that matters?...Human brains are wired to "make sense" of the world/reality---we see a splotch of ink and associate it with anything familiar like a butterfly or some such.
Our existence can only make sense in the framework of the "stories" we tell ourselves---so ---we could say (as a story) we are a random piece of biological matter with no purpose or meaning---or we could say we are an intelligent and creative species entrusted with the well-being of the earth and all that is in it.
Which story is better?

[Stoic]

Not sure if that matters?...Human brains are wired to "make sense" of the world/reality---we see a splotch of ink and associate it with anything familiar like a butterfly or some such.
Our existence can only make sense in the framework of the "stories" we tell ourselves---so ---we could say (as a story) we are a random piece of biological matter with no purpose or meaning---or we could say we are an intelligent and creative species entrusted with the well-being of the earth and all that is in it.
Which story is better?

Replace "entrusted with" with "responsible for", and add the word "inherent" before the word "purpose", and I'd say that we can combine the two stories, and be honest in the process.

[Tassman]

I agree.

It is obvious human beings make the rules...that is not the point. If human beings who make the rules---want the rules to work over time---they need a story that creates a "moral authority" that exists "over time". One such example are the "myths" of kings who have divine lineage---for example, the Emperor of Japan is the descendant of the Gods who created Japan....this takes "moral authority" out of the timeline of a single human and puts it across a larger segment of time.

If we are to survive as a co-operative, intelligent, social species---myths are helpful in creating a basis to which the group can give assent to certain principles. Myths need not be theistic....however, some characteristics of myths (paradigms) make them more beneficial or more harmful.
As a general rule---myths that promote cohesion (unity) are more beneficial to humanity than those that promote division---for example, Manicheasm posits 2 opposing forces of good and evil fighting each other and this creates the vicissitudes we observe, The Chinese posit 2 complimentary forces of Ying and Yang that cause the fluctuations---Science might explain the observed phenomenon in terms of natural equilibrium...whatever the explanations---the one that promotes unity/cohesion is better for humanity than the one that promotes divisions. Therefore, the explanation of complementary forces working together to create balance and harmony is a more beneficial explanation. Such a myth will be more likely to promote co-operation.

Humanity is made up of many groups---each with their own myths that promote social cohesion within those groups. Therefore, in order for all these groups to co-operate on a larger scale---humanity needs a "mega-myth".
Suppose we premise that the golden rule is "universal"---that pretty much all of humanity can give assent to it----then, as mentioned above, a mega-myth that promotes "unity" will be more beneficial to humanity than one that promotes division. This myth would posit that all humanity is of equivalent value and none superior/inferior to the other. (In reality---there are all sorts of inequalities such as able-bodied vs handicapped, wealthy vs poor...etc) This myth of equivalent value is essential for fair (just) dispute resolutions...and it is only through non-violent dispute resolutions that intergroup co-operation can be effective.

When humanity created its “mythological figures and gods” it made them in its own image with the same moral attributes the better to reinforce such values from “on high”. But now they are no longer required because we understand Natural Selection and why we instinctively feel the need for a cooperative, altruistic society. Namely, that such social behavior is necessary to survive as a cooperative intelligent social species.

[seer]

When humanity created its “mythological figures and gods” it made them in its own image with the same moral attributes the better to reinforce such values from “on high”. But now they are no longer required because we understand Natural Selection and why we instinctively feel the need for a cooperative, altruistic society. Namely, that such social behavior is necessary to survive as a cooperative intelligent social species.

That is just silly, we knew all this in the last century and still slaughtered each other by the truck load. We are still as greedy, selfish and cruel as we ever were.

[siam]

Replace "entrusted with" with "responsible for", and add the word "inherent" before the word "purpose", and I'd say that we can combine the two stories, and be honest in the process.

Yes---a diversity of articulation of "myths" (paradigms) is beneficial to humanity---so long as the end goal of such myths is to create co-operation and harmony....rather than division and destruction.
(this is because diversity promotes choice and having choices discourages oppression. (oppression--lack of/excessive constraint of choice)

In a "post-truth" environment, agreement on "Honesty" (truth) may be contentious? The recent events of the Capitol riots and Qanon have had me reflecting on our "secular" myths and propagandas---particularly State-sanctioned myths...and hypocrisies.
When Saudi hijackers crashed into buildings---the state-driven "conspiracy" myths made whole nations go to war with the unrelated countries of Iraq/Afghanistan....causing countless lives lost of both soldiers and civilians----So what makes one myth ok and another not?

[siam]

When humanity created its “mythological figures and gods” it made them in its own image with the same moral attributes the better to reinforce such values from “on high”. But now they are no longer required because we understand Natural Selection and why we instinctively feel the need for a cooperative, altruistic society. Namely, that such social behavior is necessary to survive as a cooperative intelligent social species.

1) Which "myth" to endorse?---the one that posits that "we" (humanity) always instinctively understood co-operation led to survival and therefore created myths to reinforce the idea---or one that posits that because we understand this concept (co-operation leading to survival) with both instinct and reason we no longer need the myths?.....and...does it really matter?

2) Of the 7 billion or so people on earth, Christians make up only around 2 billion or so----globally---Christian ethico-moral principles are a minority view. Many Christian concepts such as Imago Dei are particular to Christians only and it would be unfair to generalize based on a minority view.

[Tassman]

That is just silly, we knew all this in the last century and still slaughtered each other by the truck load. We are still as greedy, selfish and cruel as we ever were.

You are confusing the evolved need for humans to live together in community to survive as a species, with the rules of behavior they devise to enable them to do so. These have varied considerably from culture to culture over time.